SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) The present intra-court appeal has been preferred impugning the judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, which was filed seeking the following prayers : "i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent-University may kindly be directed to enroll the petitioner for B.Sc. (MLT) Course from the Session 2017-18 onwards. ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to complete her B.Sc. (MLT) Course and to undertake B.Sc. (MLT) 2nd Year Examination for the Session 2017-18 as well as 3rd year examination for the next session. iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to declare the result of petitioner and to grant degree of B.Sc. (MLT) to the petitioner on completion of her Course. iv) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."
(2.) Learned Single Judge dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine inter alia holding that the course in question viz. B.Sc. (MLT) had began on 02.01.2018, whereas the petitioner was granted permission to pursue the course by the State Government on 28.03.2018 and leave for joining such course was granted vide order dated 07.06.2018, making it effective for the period from 15.04.2018 to 14.04.2020. While also observing that the petitioner was admittedly relieved from her place of posting on 17.06.2018, learned Single Judge has held that in a course in question, which involves theoretical as well as practical classes, without proper attendance the petitioner cannot be permitted to undertake examination.
(3.) Assailing the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge, Mr. Sandhu learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had submitted her application on 02.01.2018 for pursuing B.Sc.(MLT), but for her dismay despite persuasion, the University did enroll her. He asserted that it was entirely University's fault in permitting her to undertake the course by enrolling. Learned counsel contended that University has neither refused to enroll her nor has it sent any communication in this regard. The appellant has been waiting for positive response from the University and it was only when the examinations approached, she was apprised that she has even been enrolled. This being the position, the appellant-petitioner cannot be deprived to undertake the examination as the fault entirely lies with the University, argued Mr. Sandhu.;